-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I sent the following in reply:
Seems mostly ok. On the IAP, I thought there was also an element
where the proposals may not be aligned and that CWG needed to also explore its own mechanisms.
Also, should i should send it on to the WA 3 - am i authorized to do so.
thanks
avri
Got authorization to pass it on in the phone call. And asked for a day to reply. Note I will be reporting on this in the CWG meeting on Thursday, so would like this sent before then, avri - -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: draft response to Lise and Jonathan Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:55:45 +0100 From: Thomas Rickert <rickert@anwaelte.de> To: Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> Hi Avri, we have prepared a response to Lise and Jonathan, which you find below. As promised, we keep you in the loop. Are you ok with us sending it as is? Thanks, Thomas Dear Lise and Jonathan, Thank you for the very useful call last Friday, 23 January. It was helpful to hear updates from the CWG, and I hope the overview we provided of the CCWG's face-to-face meeting, Frankfurt 19-20 January, was informative and showed we are working in the same direction. We held a session in Frankfurt to discuss the draft "CWG-Stewardship accountability dependencies" document, and the summary outcome of that discussion follows. You can also find details of the session, including staff notes and transcript on the CCWG wiki https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51418500 (noting that the draft is a living document and we held our discussions on 19 January. • Budget Accountability and Transparency While the CCWG is considering reinforcing ICANN's accountability with regards to budget, the mechanisms would most probably not specifically address the IANA budget. Therefore we encourage the CWG to recommend measures to enhance transparency regarding the IANA budget, we will support requests for increased transparency. • Accountability for (re)delegations To the extent that the Board may take decisions on this area, CCWG intends to recommend accountability mechanisms that would be relevant and supportive. We expect to recommend a strengthened reconsideration process for Board as well as management/staff decisions. • Independent Review of Board Actions CCWG is discussing introducing binding mechanisms of redress to the independent review process for certain decisions of the Board. We are very much in tune with CWG approach. • Independent Appeals Panel We expect CCWG recommendations to be supportive to the CWG proposals, we aligned in our thinking/approach. • Control over ICANN Board decisions. When we met, this was a new section of the document and CCWG members had not had chance to review before the meeting. The CCWG is now considering options to challenge and overturn ICANN Board decisions. We are very aware of the need for caution so as not to undermine the bottom-up nature of the ICANN policy decision-making process. Community oversight of Board decisions would probably not extend to the ability to mandate a specific decision, but rather to overturn a Board decision or require the Board to make a decision in the case of inaction. This avenue of work will be one of the focuses of CCWG attention for the coming weeks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUx+R/AAoJEOo+L8tCe36H0kUH/0tfzmiRYrLaAjzqU5KygxkO hIV6T5i5tFfjssevYGIQdRwDgzsaEdYPY763nMXz9vYmgfiB03tlfL0CCCtC4Bxx d26VdihXAjlNX15aNw8RB9h/fG++VxTn0k3ELGDzwhscuRoaoGLlI7fd3Z971jE8 KTjUaKJ16qmDs/xO5IK2bS6O+vUi6IBsgmtVFD2rdnImJPT6rGNdZN32MiutR+o+ vdiYpidU22/oWfb7IjQsIq4GZj6fS32VqGDln4ZVNQRvYan7jZnHC3zH0H+tdJ5M 2zCw/o48NtEPUjLbxZHhy18jyyJ3NLS8sY8Z+ZHeZtP5pn53Sv8YWETxf7NcyC0= =FHQR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----